More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There are two dimensions in play: centres of journals, and length of journals. A shallow axlebox can be the result of short journals, or closer centres, or most likely a combination of the two.

 

Yes, but the distance between the wheel face and the inner edge of the journal appears to be more or less fixed. Presumably, this was inherited from the early days as there would have been less confidence in the shear strength of the axle.

[billbedford]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Midland D299, where the dimensions are known, for comparison:

 

 

[Crop from DY1061 / MRSC 88-2014-0044]

 

Headstocks 7' 6" x 11" x 4½", Solebars 11" x 4½", 6' 1" between inside faces, 6' 10" over outside faces. width over side rails / sheeting is 7' 5", i.e. ½" inset from end of headstock. 

 

And a part cross-section of the solebar taken from MRSC 88-D1879:

 

[Compound2632]

Looking in LNWR Wagons, that  classic Emmett antique, the D1 7-ton one-plank open, had 6" x 3" journals at 6' 3" centres. Solebars were 10½" x 4½" set at 5' 11½" between inside faces, i.e. 6' 4" centres and 6' 8½" over outside faces. The side rails were 3½" wide, packed out from the solebars by 2¼" blocks to give 7' 8" overall width. 

 

These dimensions simply don't square with the rectangular bolt pattern of the buffer guides that those Furness wagons wore. Emmett used a three-bolt buffer guide, two bolts on the inner side, passing through the solebar-headstock-diagonal knee, and one on the outside which is a solebar strapbolt, but with an awkward kink in it:

 

 

[Scanned from LNWR Wagons Vol. 1 p. 65, GA4 of April 1890 - in fact for the D2 7-ton two-plank wagon, since that drawing is reproduced more sharply than GA3 of February 1896 for the D1 one-plank wagon on p. 61; the underframes are, as far as I can see, identical.]

 

For comparison, the Midland 8-ton underframe, with 8" journals on 6' 6" centres, solebars at 6' 1" between rear faces, 6' 5½" centres, 6' 10" over outside faces; 7' 5" over the side rails which were 4" wide, overlapping the top of the solebar by ½" as shown in the drawing extract bill just posted,

 

 

[Resized crop from MRSC 88-D0267, Drg. 790 of June 1889, D351 8-ton end-door highside wagon.]

Edited June 21 by Compound2632

[WFPettigrew]

9 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

Wearing my HMRS hat, we have a GA drawing of a Furness Railway 4 plank wagon built in 1864

 

There are some drawings from Metro and the likes for wagons for the FR - however, not all of these were built which adds some uncertainty to their validity. However, yes such contemporaneous drawings might help unravel this riddle.

 

What I  had meant by works drawings were wagon ones from the drawing office in Barrow, the only survivors seemingly being one for the D55 goods brake vans, and the D1 3 plank side door open wagons. 

 

Best wishes

 

Neil 

[WFPettigrew]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Applying the Vincent analysis technique to those two photos of Furness wagons, it looks to be the case that the buffer head is of larger diameter than the headstock is tall - say 12" and 11". The base of the buffer guide fits the height of the headstock, 11" diameter. The width over the buffer guides is therefore 5' 8½" + 11" = 6' 7½". The heads of the solebar strapbolts are maybe another 2¼" further out, i.e. at 7' 0" centres; allowing ½" for the thickness of each strapbolt gives 6' 11" over the outside faces of the solebars; if they are 5" thick, 6' 1" between inside faces - the canonical dimension.

 

The buffer guides are similar to Midland ones, with the bolts in a rectangular pattern, two at the top and two at the bottom, which, given that the outer bolts are pretty certainly the outer ends of solebar strapbolts - the fixing bolts for which can be seen on the solebar - strongly supports the idea that the inside faces of the solebars are at 6' 1" apart. 

 

Thank you so much Stephen for doing the hard graft here!  That does seem to add up about right - maybe 6' rather than 6'1" but what's 0.33mm amongst 4mm scale friends?! 

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I don't suppose you've got a view of the inside of an empty wagon, showing the relationship between floorboards, side rails, and side sheeting?

 

Hmm, not of a D15 sadly.  If only there was a more aerial shot of the Thankerton smash.  

 

What I can proffer is this crop from the Sankey collection, copyright Cumbria Archives, of image No 3017 showing a (similarly aged and dimensioned) D16 drop side two plank wagon alongside Ramsden Dock in Barrow being loaded with softwood heading to the local papermill.  OK it is a drop side wagon but the frame would have been the same I think.

 

 

This does show the side rail was wider (at the top) than the side sheets, which we know were 3".  (It is also a superb illustration of the strapbolt type affair used to secure the drop sides in the closed position.)

 

Does this help at all?

 

Best wishes

 

Neil 

 

 

 

 

[WFPettigrew]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

And a part cross-section of the solebar taken from MRSC 88-D1879:

 

This taken with Stephen's calculations does make me wonder now if the side rails on the FR wagons were similarly notched for the top edge of the solebars.  This would also buy some valuable space to ensure the journal centres were under the solebars.   And from a modelling perspective, would mean that having the side rail the same thickness as the side sheets (i.e. made from the same sheet of styrene!) is less of a fudge than it migth have been.

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Thank you so much Stephen for doing the hard graft here!  That does seem to add up about right - maybe 6' rather than 6'1" but what's 0.33mm amongst 4mm scale friends?! 

 

 

Hmm, not of a D15 sadly.  If only there was a more aerial shot of the Thankerton smash.  

 

What I can proffer is this crop from the Sankey collection, copyright Cumbria Archives, of image No 3017 showing a (similarly aged and dimensioned) D16 drop side two plank wagon alongside Ramsden Dock in Barrow being loaded with softwood heading to the local papermill.  OK it is a drop side wagon but the frame would have been the same I think.

 

 

This does show the side rail was wider (at the top) than the side sheets, which we know were 3".  (It is also a superb illustration of the strapbolt type affair used to secure the drop sides in the closed position.)

 

So, if one assumes 4" wide siderails on a 7' 4" wide wagon, with the siderails bolted directly to the solebars, that's 6' 8" over outside faces of solebars; with 4½" (5") thick solebars, that would give 5' 11" (5' 10") between inside faces and 6' 3½" (6' 3") centres, which would tie in with Emmettesque 6' 3" journal centres, per Bill's observation.

 

Do the diagrams give journal sizes?

 

But I still struggle to reconcile this with the buffer guide bolt pattern.

[WFPettigrew]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Do the diagrams give journal sizes?

 

No, not for these early wagons, sadly. 

 

That might be because there was some variation in the dimensions, or it might be just that the harrassed probably junior draughtsman tasked with producing the diagram book (for a possibly feared new overlord) didn't bother digging out the sizes.  There were some errors in some of the written elements of the diagrams, perhaps most starkly the 1870s era metal bodied gunpowder vans with a single wheel brake, which were marked up as being new in 1913 (after the 1911 BOT requirement for brakes on all wheels, which actually the FR had already adopted on its new wagons for a decade before that deadline).

 

I need to sit down in a darkened room and try and work out what's going on with the buffer guide bolts... 

 

 

[Chas Levin]

On 19/06/2024 at 15:23, Compound2632 said:

 

 

Is this the best 4 mm scale D299 kit to date? 

 

Certainly looks it, doesn't it? It's clearly popular already: I tried ordering one yesterday and Brassmasters said they'd been cleared out at Scalefour Crewe...

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

It's clearly popular already: I tried ordering one yesterday and Brassmasters said they'd been cleared out at Scalefour Crewe...

 

Ar Crewe! There is hope, then, to redeem those who have gone over to the dark side.

[Andy Vincent]

14 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

I tried ordering one yesterday and Brassmasters said they'd been cleared out at Scalefour Crewe...

They should be back in stock with Brassmasters on Tuesday - new stock is being packed at the moment. Sales across all the wagons are running at more than twice last year's levels (which was itself more than I expected). I am very grateful for all the support and encouragement.

[Andy Vincent]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There is hope, then, to redeem those who have gone over to the dark side.

That is a relief - I can now confess to having done some items for 'dark side' modelers. In my defence, none of them appear in my lists . . . 

[Compound2632]

Must get back to the paintshop, a great pile of Mr Emmett's wagons awaits top coat...

[Andy Vincent]

5 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

Thank you so much Stephen for doing the hard graft here! 

[** corrected version re strapbolt - main changes underlined **]

 

Just to add extra confusion (and risk distracting @Compound2632 from his painting), I have an L&Y GA that shows 5' 11.5" between solebars and 6'4" across midpoint of journals. The journal size isnt quoted but it has 3" springs plus another measurement that indicates the journal length would be unlikely to exceed 7", so I wouldn't be surprised if they were 6"x3".  Buffers were attached by strapbolt on the outer face of the solebar (it is fixed to the solebar and the bolt part cranked further inwards to line up with the outer bolts of the buffer - so the outer buffer bolts are inline with the solebar). 

 

[Added] Curb rail is the same pattern as @billbedford's example - shallow rebate to allow it just rest on the outer limits of the solebar

Edited June 21 by Andy Vincent
Corrected strapbolt comment (must avoid multi-tasking!)

[Andy Vincent]

40 minutes ago, Andy Vincent said:

[** corrected version re strapbolt - main changes underlined **]

By way of atonement - image attached showing way strapbolt is cranked behind solebar

 

[Andy Vincent]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

but with an awkward kink in it:

Given the LNWR example and now my (much edited) L&Y example, both of which have the 5' 11.5" spacing between solebars and which go to seemingly extraordinary lengths to fix the buffers with cranked strapbolts, I would be inclined to conclude the the FR probably also had a similar solebar spacing.

[MarcD]

Sole bar spacing evolution could get someone a PhD.  From my research each company made the dimensions up as they went along.  Headstock size is another moveable feast.

Marc

[MarcD]

Sole bar spacing evolution could get someone a PhD.  From my research each company made the dimensions up as they went along.  Headstock size is another moveable feast.

Marc

[Compound2632]

An unsprung vehicle. The Pre-Grouping Models S&DJR large cattle wagon:

 

 

Apropos the earlier discussion, the supplied etched axleguards are 23.12 mm wide overall; I toyed with soldering the bearings to the outside buy decided alignment would be tricky, so opted for the MJT units. The vee hangers are from the Meon Valley Midland etch while the lever and lever guard are from the Brassmasters subframe etch. The brake lever as etched has the bend much nearer the handle end, so it was straightend out and re-bent.

 

I see I've forgotten the safety loops.

 

I realised too late I had repeated the mistake I made with the Midland medium cattle wagon. The bar across the top open section of the side should not be halfway up the main open section but half way up the door opening - about 1 mm lower.  

[Andy Vincent]

On 21/06/2024 at 20:35, Compound2632 said:

so opted for the MJT units

Are these rocking units? I am curious about the gap between spring shoes and solebar. To me, the unprototypical gap that rocking units require has always seemed their biggest drawback. Conceptually, I suppose you could arrange the spring and axlebox to be fixed and have the axleguard move behind it, given that slotting axleboxes is now the norm. However, it likely wouldnt be very strong and could easily start to bind

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, Andy Vincent said:

Are these rocking units? I am curious about the gap between spring shoes and solebar. 

 

No, just incompetence. The MJT units can be assembled with one rocking or both fixed; in this case I glued both in place fixed without checking the fit of the axlebox / spring units. What I have done previously when using these axleguards with MJT's whitemetal axlebox / spring castings is to soler or glue those to the axleguard first, then use the spring shoes to guide the fit without bothering with any other packing between floor and axleguard. Sometimes one has to fold down the tabs, sometimes not - in this case I left them upright.

 

These are the MJT ones I usually use:

 

 

https://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt/2299.php

 

Though in this case I was using an earlier version of the etch that lacked the crown and drawbar plates etc.

 

I've come to agree with you on the unsatisfactory look of compensated units - unless one goes for an inside bearing unit - it's the chief drawback of the otherwise elegant Prickly Pear suspension.

 

But any form of springing or compensation is overkill in 00, unless one's built a really wonky wagon, in which case the best course of action is to start again.

[Compound2632]

I had started painting the pair of Meon Valley Midland opens when I realised something was lacking - door bang plates on the brake side. Rectangles of 5 thou plasticard, nominally 1.5 mm x 1.3 mm, with Archer rivet transfers:

 

 

I thought I should at least make an attempt at representing another missing feature, the bottom door catch levers. These are simply bent up from 0.45 mm brass wire and glued to the back of the solebars. They need trimming, as they should only project 2.5 mm below the solebar. I've not attempted to represent the bracket in which they sit, or the securing peg on its chain.

Edited June 23 by Compound2632

[Andy Vincent]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

door bang plates on the brake side

I went backwards and forwards on whether to add these - there are photographs of the brake side where no protector is present, the drawing shows a rectangular shape protector (that I dont recall seeing in any photos) and there are certainly many photos that show the pattern @Compound2632 has added. My eventual conclusion was to omit them and allow the modeller to make their own decisions since they are relatively easy to add but not as easy to remove.

 

What is does highlight is that I need to add model specific notes / construction tips etc. especially for anyone less familiar with the prototype. This was always on the list for this year but has taken me longer to get to than I envisaged (as has updating the web site). There is a generic set of instructions but I need to add something more specific.

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, Andy Vincent said:

I went backwards and forwards on whether to add these - there are photographs of the brake side where no protector is present, the drawing shows a rectangular shape protector (that I dont recall seeing in any photos) and there are certainly many photos that show the pattern @Compound2632 has added. My eventual conclusion was to omit them and allow the modeller to make their own decisions since they are relatively easy to add but not as easy to remove.

 

The general arrangement drawings differ in the size and placement of the door striking plate (to give it its Derby C&W DO name) and of course the design changed down the years - once wagons started to be fitted with a solebar-mounted spring steel door stop, they got a strip plate in lieu of the original rectangle. The Study Centre copy of Drg. 550 for D299 wagons shows this arrangement, but one has always to remember that this drawing represents very late construction.

 

Here's the original design, from Drg. 630B 'Details for Coal Wagon' - a drawing originally made in 1885 but this copy a re-drawing with additions for wagons to Lot 506, the twelve 10-ton wagons to D302:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Drg. 630B, MRSC 88-D2149.]

 

Andy, you are in good company omitting the striking plate - the Slater's kit doesn't have it! But could it be an item to include in the brass etch?

Edited June 23 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

I became dissatisfied with the chunky look of the bottom door catches. Checking the drawing, they are 1" diameter bar, not 1½", so I've re-done them using 0.33 mm brass wire - which I am now almost out of, so that'll be on the next Alan Gibson order along with more split-spoke wheels - LNWR wagons for the use of. The bottom door catches are now almost invisible with the brake safety loops behind them: